Here’s what “friends” told The Telegraph, the Royal family’s choice for sycophantic coverage.
“Repeated requests by US lawyers to interview the Duke of York over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein are little more than “PR stunts” at his expense, a friend has claimed.
The Duke has been advised not to respond to such requests, they said.
David Boies, a lawyer who represents more than a dozen of Jeffrey Epstein victims, claimed Andrew has ‘not been prepared to co-operate’.”
But the victims’ lawyer gives the Duke of York some handy legal advice, which will probably go unheeded.
According to The Daily Mail, Andrew, who vehemently denies all claims of wrongdoing, has hired Clare Montgomery, one of the UK’s leading extradition lawyers. Her former clients include the Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet.
Asked about her appointment, Mr Boies said: ‘It’s not that I don’t appreciate why he wants to lawyer up – I do appreciate that. But if he could step back and look down the road and focus on what’s the endgame.
In a move many thought would never happen, a federal judge in New York on Friday amended the protocol the court will follow in releasing a trove of documents concerning deceased pedophileJeffrey Epstein. According to Law and Crime, “This will allow for documents that include the names of non-party individuals to be released on a rolling basis. The documents in question are part of a defamation dispute involving Epstein’s alleged coconspirator Ghislaine Maxwelland alleged victimVirginia Roberts Giuffre.”
Ms Roberts said today on Twitter:
Law and Crime added “though Giuffre’s defamation case against Maxwell ended in 2015, Giuffre’s attorneys have fought a protracted legal battle seeking to unseal documents initially filed under seal that may contain allegations against other public figures from Epstein’s infamous elite social circle.”
The non-parties include:
“(a) persons who produced or answered discovery based upon the representation or understanding that the discovery would be subject to the Protective Order previously issued in this action; (b) persons who are identified as having allegedly engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff, or other alleged victims, or allegedly facilitated such acts; (c) persons whose intimate, sexual, or private conduct is described in the Sealed Materials; and (d) persons who are alleged to have been victimized”
The court will review the material in groups determined by the non-party individuals named in the documents, beginning with all documents mentioning “Doe #1” and “Doe #2.”
— Read on lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-accelerates-process-for-unsealing-jeffrey-epstein-docs-naming-names-on-rolling-basis/amp/